spydy13
NBA Starter
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,284
- Reaction score
- 3,618
- Points
- 113
Uh, I've asked you twice now for a justification for not making this reg available to the public before the vote, and you haven't answered. And now you're asking me another question?
But what the hell, I'll answer. No, I wouldn't plan on reading all of it initially, because it is not my field. But there are tens of thousands of people who would, and who'd then be capable of focusing on key language and starting an informed debate/discussion for the rest of us. To the extent specific problematic language was identified, yes, I'd read some of that for myself. I've read hundreds of pages of the ACA over time to verify/analyze various critiques/commentaries.
Uh...yes, as a matter of fact. I have.
Some language --particularly amendments to existing bills -- can be enormously complicated and very difficult to get through. That's true for the people who are drafting it as well, which is why errors/mistakes are not uncommon. Other stand-alone regulations or bills aren't bad at all, especially if they're drafted well. Though even then, errors are not uncommon.
But all you're really doing is validating the point that making the regulation public before it is passed, so that lawyers and other outside experts can analyze and comment upon it, is the wisest course
I should have combined the posts but here is my answer in a previous post:
Would it be better if this was out in the open? Yes, mainly because people who are so concerned about this would see that there is nothing wrong with the regulation. Do I want congress getting their grubby hands on this issue? Nope.